Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
- Abdollah Rezagholivand Lahrud 1
- Akbar Nikkhah 2
- Hadi Khabazan 3
- Saeed mokhtarzadeh 2
- Majid Dehghan 1
- Farzad Sadighi 1
- Yosef Mokhtabad 4
- Farzad Safari 2
- Azim Rajaei 2
1 Dasht-e-Naz Co., Sari, Mazandaran, Iran
2 Ferdows Pars Agriculture-Livestock Holding Co., Tehran, Iran
3 Department of animal science, University of Zanjan
4 1Dasht-e-Naz Co., Sari, Mazandaran, Iran
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare feedlot performance, carcass characteristics, blood metabolites, and economic profits between pure and crossbreeds Holstein calves. Crossbreeds were produced by crossing Holstein (H) cows with Angus (A), Charolais (C), Limousin (L) and INRA 95 (I) bull’s semen. The performance of 25 calves of each breed (125 calves in total) was compared in a fattening period of eleven months. The average daily gain was significantly higher in crossbred calves compared to pure Holstein calves. The interaction of breed and time was significant (p < 0.01). The Charolais crossbred calves and pure Holstein had significantly lower dry matter intake than other crossbreeds, and feed conversion ratio in the C×H calves was remarkably more favorable than other groups (p < 0.01). Dressing percentage and saleable meat yield for C×H, L×H and I×H crossbreeds were higher than for pure Holstein and A×H. Concentrations of plasma urea of Charolais crossbred calves was more than other groups (p < 0.01). Economic calculations demonstrated that the respective highest profit for the whole fattening period belonged to crossbreeds of C×H, I×H, L×H, A×H, and pure Holsteins. In conclusion, the calves from Holstein-beef crosses had higher feedlot performance, dressing percentage and economic productivity than pure Holstein calves.
Keywords
ALPER, and Güngör, MEHMET (2006) Growth
curve analysis for body weight and dry matter
intake in Friesian, Limousin x Friesian and
Piemontese x Friesian cattle. Archives Animal
Breeding, 49(4): 329-339.
2. Andersen BB, Liboriussen T, Kousgaard K,
and Buchter L (1977) Crossbreeding
experiment with beef and dual-purpose sire
breeds on Danish dairy cows III. Daily gain,
feed conversion and carcass quality of
intensively fed young bulls. Livestock
Production Science 4(1): 19-29.
3. Barton L, Rehak D, Teslík V, Bures D, and
Zahrádková R (2006) Effect of breed on
growth performance and carcass composition
of Aberdeen Angus, Charolais, Hereford and
Simmental bulls. Czech Journal of Animal
Science 51(2): 47.
4. Bown MD, Muir PD, and Thomson BC (2016)
Dairy and beef breed effects on beef yield, beef
quality and profitability: a review. New Zealand
Journal of Agricultural Research 59(2): 174-184.
5. Berg RT, and Butterfield RM (1976) New
concepts of cattle growth. Sydney University
Press, University of Sydney.
6. Block HC, McKinnon JJ, Mustafa AF, and
Christensen DA (2001). Manipulation of cattle
growth to target carcass quality. Journal of
animal science 79(1): 133-140.
7. Clarke AM, Drennan MJ, McGee M, Kenny
DA, Evans RD, and Berry DP (2009) Intake,
live animal scores/measurements and carcass
composition and value of late-maturing beef
and dairy breeds. Livestock Science, 126(1-3):
57-68.
8. Cartwright TC (1970) Selection criteria for
beef cattle for the future. Journal of Animal
Science, 30(5): 706-711.
9. Istasse L, Van Eenaeme C, Evrard P, Gabriel A,
Baldwin P, Maghuin-Rogister G, and Bienfait JM
(1990). Animal performance, plasma hormones
and metabolites in Holstein and Belgian Blue
growing-fattening bulls. Journal of animal
science, 68(9): 2666-2673.
10. Güngör M, Alçiçek A, and Önenç A (2003)
Feedlot Performance and Slaughter Traits of
Friesian, Piemontese x Friesian and Limousin x
Friesian Young Bulls under Intensive Beef
Production System in Turkey. Journal of
Applied Animal Research, 24(2): 129-136.
11. Keane, MG (2011). Ranking of sire breeds and
beef cross breeding of dairy and beef cows.
Teagasc.
12. Matsuzaki M, Takizawa S, and Ogawa M (1997)
Plasma insulin, metabolite concentrations, and
carcass characteristics of Japanese Black,
Japanese Brown, and Holstein steers. Journal of
animal science, 75(12): 3287-3293.
13. National Research Council. (2000). Nutrient
requirements of beef cattle: update 2000.
National Academies Press.
14. Nicol AM, and Brookes IM (2007). The
metabolisable energy requirements of grazing
livestock. Pasture and supplements for grazing
animals, 14, 151-172.
15. Pfuhl RALF, Bellmann, OLAF, Kuhn C,
Teuscher FRIEDRICH, Ender K, and Wegner J
(2007). Beef versus dairy cattle: a comparison
of feed conversion, carcass composition, and
meat quality. Archiv fur Tierzucht, 50(1): 59.
16. Purchas R (2003). Factors affecting carcass
composition and beef quality. Profitable Beef
Production in New Zealand. New Zealand beef
council report, 124-152.
17. Southgate JR, Cook GL, and Kempster AJ
(1988). Evaluation of British Friesian,
Canadian Holstein and beef breed× British
Friesian steers slaughtered over a commercial
range of fatness from 16-month and 24-month
beef production systems 1. Live-weight gain
and efficiency of food utilization. Animal
Science, 46(3): 353-364.
18. Vestergaard M, Jørgensen KF, Çakmakçı C,
Kargo M, Therkildsen M, Munk A, and
Kristensen T. (2019). Performance and carcass
quality of crossbred beef x Holstein bull and
heifer calves in comparison with purebred
Holstein bull calves slaughtered at 17 months of
age in an organic production system. Livestock
science, 223: 184-192.
ME, and Crouse JD, (1997). Characterization
of different biological types of steers (Cycle
IV): Wholesale, subprimal, and retail product
yields. Journal of Animal Science, 75(9): 2389-
2403.
20. Wheeler TL, Cundiff LV, Shackelford SD, and
Koohmaraie M, (2004). Characterization of
biological types of cattle (Cycle VI): Carcass,
yield, and longissimus palatability traits. Journal
of Animal Science, 82(4): 1177-1189.
21. Wheeler TL, Cundiff LV, Shackelford SD, and
Koohmaraie M (2005). Characterization of
biological types of cattle (Cycle VII): Carcass,
yield, and longissimus palatability traits. Journal
of animal science, 83(1): 196-207.
)